Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by telerion
Speak truth to idiocy. Rec for Xanthos.

When you have nothing left with which to defend your stance, there's always insults. Looks good on paper.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I don't agree.
Science doesn't start out with a result and then try to prove it.
Well, aside from human nature and ego ...
Science does come to some conclusions, but yes, those conclusions are modified by new discovery. That usually doesn't mean you have to throw out everything and start all over. For example, you can send a rocket to the moon usi ...[text shortened]... at things moving near the speed of light.
I don't see any blinders in science. Where are they?

Can science seek and find ID? Where we run into opinions it isn't
a matter any longer of what science can do, it goes to the
understanding and wisdom of people involved to see things. It
is no longer methodologies which are not going to give insight into
truth or reality. It is our human's ability to grasp something for
what it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When you have nothing left with which to defend your stance, there's always insults. Looks good on paper.

Freak, when you have cultivated the quality of your research, logic, and prose to a far higher standard, I'll be there, waiting to teach you even more. Until then, don't expect me to pay your forum pollution more than a disinterested smurk. Happy Chanukah.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, we can actually go to marble factory and see the marbles being made by humans. We know humans exist. We do not know that god exists. We have observed marble-o-genesis (if you'd like) on many occassions, but we've never observed god. You would say that we have, however that cannot be said with absolute certainty since there are other plausible explanations that divine intervention.

I thought so, we can go to the factory. We know marbles are man
made because we can go to the factory, but those marbles you
see rolling down the hill, could they be there because of natural
occurances, time, and chance working on the material which caused
them to become circular and marble like in appearance and so on?
Maybe they are not from the marble factory is that possible, does
simply knowing about the factory automatically mean they are
man made?

As far as observing God, more than a few people over time have
made claims that their lives were changed by God, that God entered
into their lives and made changes. Of course that can be like
our marbles, many other reasons could really come into play, but
still people make the claims.

Simply because we cannot put a volt meter to something, or put
a yardstick next to it for measuring doesn't mean it isn't real or
valid. I acknowledge my faith when it comes to God, I cannot
force God into revealing Himself, so I cannot prove Him to you or
anyone else. That does not mean He isn't real, only that He has
to make Himself real, He cannot be forced to do anything outside
of what He is willing to do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can science seek and find ID? Where we run into opinions it isn't
a matter any longer of what science can do, it goes to the
understanding and wisdom of people involved to see things. It
is no longer methodologies which are not going to give insight into
truth or reality. It is our human's ability to grasp something for
what it is.
Kelly

Can science seek and find ID?

It think so. All we need is for the designer(s?) to come down and explain how it creates worlds so that we can actually look for the design. Maybe the designer tells Michael Behe and Bill Dembski. Perhaps they can then relate to us what "design" is. Once they've done this in a testable manner, then science can look for it.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Can science seek and find ID?

It think so. All we need is for the designer(s?) to come down and explain how it creates worlds so that we can actually look for the design. Maybe the designer tells Michael Behe and Bill Dembski. Perhaps they can then relate to us what "design" is. Once they've done this in a testable manner, then science can look for it.[/b]

So you and scottishinnz both need to see the factory as it were or
you don't have faith or feel the need to acknowledge reality could
be here by design. It has been foretold God does plan on taking
the time to explain things to us, but then faith no longer comes into
play at that time, simply a reality check of the highest degree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I thought so, we can go to the factory. We know marbles are man
made because we can go to the factory, but those marbles you
see rolling down the hill, could they be there because of natural
occurances, time, and chance working on the material which caused
them to become circular and marble like in appearance and so on?
Maybe they are not from the marb ...[text shortened]... ke Himself real, He cannot be forced to do anything outside
of what He is willing to do.
Kelly

Okay, I take your point and it is a good one. However the chances of a marble 'popping into existance' are remote. It would take an enormous concentration of energy that it unlikely to ever occur on this planet. (E being = Mass * 300 million KM per sec ^2).

It is plausible that the 'marble' was generated in another way, it could have been formed volcanically, or originally been a rough rock that was smoothed in a stream. All these things are possible, there are just varying likelihoods of them actually occurring. The most likely scenario, when we live in a world where both marbles and humans exist is that a human dropped the marble at the top of the hill.

You cannot prove the existance of God nor can I disprove the existance of god. I can merely point out that there is no evidence for god that cannot be explained in other ways.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you and scottishinnz both need to see the factory as it were or
you don't have faith or feel the need to acknowledge reality could
be here by design. It has been foretold God does plan on taking
the time to explain things to us, but then faith no longer comes into
play at that time, simply a reality check of the highest degree.
Kelly

First, let me say that I think your first sentence is a bit of a twist. I need to "see the factory" as you put it to consider ID a scientific hypothesis. Of course, whether I am privy to this info some day or not, I can always "acknowledge" that ID is possible. Once we allow for omnipotent manipulators anything is possible. Faith unfortunately has not proven effective in eliminating any of these many possibilities. Sure, every person thinks his or her personal faith is spot on, but in terms of supplying all of us with testable, predictable truths about the external world, faith has failed miserably. Now we all know that the scientific method has allowed humans to uncover a vast number of such truths. Will science allow us to know everything? Almost certainly not. But does faith perform any better in this regard? No.

Ok, that said, the problem that I was highlighting above is that without something specific to look for (namely "design" in place of just complexity), then anything goes. For example, I can claim by faith that "happystance" is behind the life and that the complexity of basic organisms reveals that they could not have evolved nor been designed by any intelligence, but unless I can offer a formal definition of exactly what "happystance" is (so that we can go out and look for it, or better put, look against it), I have nothing of value. Now is it possible, that "happystance" is the cause? Sure. But that has no relevance upon whether it has any knowledge value. We first need to know exactly what "happystance" is. For the same reason, the ambigious ID currently fails as well.

Originally posted by telerion
First, let me say that I think your first sentence is a bit of a twist. I need to "see the factory" as you put it to consider ID a scientific hypothesis. Of course, whether I am privy to this info some day or not, I can always "acknowledge" that ID is possible. Once we allow for omnipotent manipulators anything is possible. Faith unfortunately has n ...[text shortened]... exactly what "happystance" is. For the same reason, the ambigious ID currently fails as well.

Why do you think design requires an omnipotent designer? One of
the reasons I dislike ID is that it only shows design, it does not
identify who or what the designer is. A creationist, like myself when
I speak about what I think is true, says God did it, ID does not do
that in my opinion. Strickly looking at the data, is this all by design
or by chance through natural laws and processes? Which is more
likely, and if no one can tell, what is missing that we need to see
besides the factory. Once the factory is seen we no longer have to
look for it or wonder if it is real.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you think design requires an omnipotent designer? One of
the reasons I dislike ID is that it only shows design, it does not
identify who or what the designer is. A creationist, like myself when
I speak about what I think is true, says God did it, ID does not do
that in my opinion. Strickly looking at the data, is this all by design
or by chance ...[text shortened]... tory. Once the factory is seen we no longer have to
look for it or wonder if it is real.
Kelly

One slight issue with your post Kelly. ID assumes design, but does nothing to prove design. We can explain their 'designs' by other means such as evolutionary theory, and these explanations require nothing more than time, a hetrogenous environment and some selection pressure.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can science seek and find ID? Kelly

If ID is out there then yes.
So far there seems to be no evidence or need for it.
Looking for ID is backwards; look for results and see where they lead.

Originally posted by telerion

a disinterested smurk.
I look forward to that day when I am able to drag myself out of the light and into the cave of blissful ignorance, just to learn from one such as yourself.

Maybe by then, you will have learned how to spell. Again, well supported arguments, logically delineated. Gee, I look forward to sitting at your feet.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]a disinterested smurk.
I look forward to that day when I am able to drag myself out of the light and into the cave of blissful ignorance, just to learn from one such as yourself.

Maybe by then, you will have learned how to spell. Again, well supported arguments, logically delineated. Gee, I look forward to sitting at your feet.[/b]

A scathing criticism. Yes, I did misspell smirk (in my defense, notice that 'u' sits right next to 'i' on the QWERTY keypad). Want to join KK, scott, KJ, and I in this discussion about ID and specifically about the importance of detailing what is meant by "design"?

Hint: You won't find an answer in Webster's.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
One slight issue with your post Kelly. ID assumes design, but does nothing to prove design. We can explain their 'designs' by other means such as evolutionary theory, and these explanations require nothing more than time, a hetrogenous environment and some selection pressure.

Exactly how do you prove design, I can give you setups where we
would/could know that what was there was designed; however, just
like the marbles, you can always say maybe not, no matter what
side of the fence you find yourself on when looking at what is
before us. Without being in the factory, looking at something
there requires specific knowledge on what we are looking at to
know if something is designed, or can show up by natural
processes over time. Simply saying we can explain way only gives
an opinion on what is there, be it small changes over time through
evolutionary change, or by design either through processes, or by
an extremely power act of creation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KneverKnight
If ID is out there then yes.
So far there seems to be no evidence or need for it.
Looking for ID is backwards; look for results and see where they lead.

I disagree that ID is backwards, or at least that is always backwards, it
can be at times, but that doesn't mean we cannot see something and
deduct that it is by design, and not by mere chance through natural
processes.
Kelly